for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

what's your agenda? the senate passes the four budget in four years. what they doing next? they're going to disney world. >> the case of marriage equality come before the nation's highest court. the momentum is certainly there. why are some in the gay communicate only cautiously optimistic. >> cyprus just got a $10 billion euro bailout but the u.s. markets are not impressed. >> i'm krystal ball in south

carolina. let the sfars be with you. a star truck spoof. you did spend $60,000 to produce it. >> talking about money and i'm not polite. let's talk about it. tvs cost money, cable costs money. afternoon with "the cycle," priceless. >> president obama is back on u.s. soil after four days in the mideast. great, maybe he and congress can get something done. i would like to see some concrete movement on gun control. wait a minute. obama is back but congress, oh, they're on spring break. ♪ okay, maybe it's not like that. but the house, that's spr spring breakers. the house and senate are in recess and pro forma session for

two weeks. no shock there. congress usually heads home around passover and easter. this time there is so much left undone. immigration, the deficit, the long term budget plan and they haven't cleaned up their room. while the president is pushing ahead with his second term priorities today, he hosted a 28 brand new american citizens at the white house including 13 service members. >> after avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all. the time has come for a comprehensive, sensible immigration reform. we are making progress but we've got to finish the job. we've just got at this point to work up the political courage to do what is required to be done. so i expect a bill to be put forward. i speck the debate to begin next month. i want to sign that bill into law as soon as possible. >> what if anything can get done while congress is away? politico's marty kay, can the president make the most of these two weeks?

can he do things while congress is away? >> he can probably be very effective while congress is away of they're scattered around the country and the world. he can use this time to talk about immigration, a little about gun control if he wants to. what we heard at the end of last week before recess, was that the gang of eight senators, half republican, half democratic, are pretty close on some sort of an immigration breakthrough. how that plays on the full senate remains to be seen but they are, some of them are ready to start debating this. it is not clear what happens at the house but the senate is ready to start talking immigration. >> that gang of eight starts to seem broken by party lines a little bit. every time we talk about immigration, we have to look at the details. some people are pro pathway. maybe after 13 years. some are pro pathway after the bored he is secure. some are pro pathway but they want to keep at it every two years. what do you think will happen? >> that's where the breakdown will come. they can agree broadly on some path to citizenship. exactly how that looks, what the penalties are, how long it takes

and how that is connected to border security is another problem. they also have to talk about what to do with another part of immigration. which is creating more high-tech visas. a huge priority for the business community. specially technology community. they might be close but once it gets to the senate floor, if it does, everything could break down like it often does. >> turning to another issue. i need to you help me understand something that i really don't quite get. when you look at support for universal background check for gun purchases, the support for the it is near universal. you see the quinnipiac poll showing 88% prove. "washington post," 91% support closing the gun show loophole. how is it that we can be in this place where it is so popular and yet the chance of getting it actually passed is not at all certain. is it still fear of the nra? what is actually going on here?

>> it depends what the nra wants to say. there are a the love senators and in house members who will be resistant to even aed monthest form of universal background checks. if the nra decides to come down pretty hard, it doesn't have much of a shot at all. the people to look at are not necessarily the democrats and republicans you would expect but the conservative democrats, the ones who are up for re-election, in 2014. we're right in that cycle already. we are smack in the middle of the 2014 election cycle. the democrats from north carolina, louisiana, arkansas, west virginia, will have trouble getting behind a gun control law with universal background checks if the nra is not fully behind it. >> ask marty, some democrats as in the case in illinois are learning just how hard it is going to be with folks like michael bloomberg spending a ton of money in other states to make sure that his version of gun control is heard. let's be honest.

michael bloomberg is the quintessential example of a plutocrat. for democrats, he is the right kind. when democrats remember that they're supposed to oppose this kind of thing, the influence of a single donor spending million of dollars to influence and tip the scales, when they remember that they're supposed to want sort of more democratic political progress and process, individual donors donating to a cause like they do to the nra. when they remember this, are they going to have to pay a political price for backing someone like michael bloomberg and his plutocracy? >> it is hard to see why some of them, if you're a fairly vulnerable person politically will side with bloomberg over the nra. the bloomberg national television campaign might be petitioning and might win a lot

of support. it is a good public relations thing. if you're a united states senator who is going to either face a primary or a tough re-election in 2014, who are you going to listen to? the folks in your backyard and maybe the nra if you've had a relationship in the past? you can listen to michael bloomberg. >> congress left time and everyone knows they left a the love work undone. i want to focus on something that has gotten less attention. kaitlyn was a highly qualified nominee for the d.c. circuit. after the supreme court, the most important in the country. overseas, a the love federal government, legal questions. she was fbled by republicans for two and a half years. the president spoke out on that amidst all the other busy stuff he was doing on foreign policy this week. and he said even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up or down vote on her nomination. the d.c. circuit has more vacancies than any other appeals court.

yet we know this doesn't get a lot of attention. do you think there is any. >> to put more pressure on this do nothing congress? >> it is unlikely she will come back up. what is happening here is that this is part of the conservative cause on judicial nominations. they're made about what happened during the bush years when democrats blocked a landful of very conservative judicial nominees. in some respects, this might be payback. what could obama do? he can try another couple of judicial nominations. the bottom line is he needs to clear these judicial nominations with at least a handful of republicans. otherwise if they're too liberal, they will get filibustered. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. up next, a huge week ahead for gay rights as the supremes take up two gay marriage cases. people have been camping out in the rain and sleet just to get inside. but pete williams always has the

inside scoop. he will get us up to speed as "the cycle" rolls on. try e-mail marketing from constantcontact. it's the fastest, easiest way to create great-looking custom e-mails that bring customers through your door. sign up for your free trial today at constantcontact.com/try.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

the supreme court is hearing two issues on same-sex marriage. justice correspondent pete williams has more on what's at stake. >> reporter: they have been a couple for 13 years living in berkeley, california. they've raised four boys, now ages 18 to 24. what they most want to be is married. >> we love each other. we're a family.

we want to experience the same kind of societal acceptance and inclusion. >> reporter: along with a gay couple in look, jeff and paul, they say california's proposition eight passed by voters in 2008 to stop same-sex marriage in the state is unconstitutional. >> the state is excluding people based on who they are. based on their sexual orientation from incredibly important institution in this country for no good reason. >> reporter: but prop 8's defenders say allowing same sex couples to wed could weaken the institution will marriage. >> it is really difficult for americans and our republican policy our culture to emphasize the fact that mothers and fathers are necessary when the law says they're optional. >> reporter: and 83-year-old widow from new york is challenging another law. doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks federal recognition of same sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about 1,000 federal benefits the other married couples get. when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a bill

from the irs for $363,000. >> i was heart sick. i lost the love of my life and i was heart sick. with this incredible expense. >> reporter: after president obama concluded the law is unconstitutional, house republicans entered the case to defend doma. >> thanks to pete williams who will join our coverage tomorrow and wednesday, if the high court strikes down doma, that would not automatically require states to permit same-sex marriage but the ruling could be a game changer for what all states are allowed to do. let's spin. jonathan capehart, friend of the show hark as piece out in the "washington post" today where he says, i don't think lgbt american fully appreciate how ten with us thing are on the court right now. he is very cautious. in factoring argues that the shift in social acceptance of gay marriage recently might actually give the supreme court reason to believe it does not need to action on doma or prop 8 because the democratic process

is moving so quickly. i think that is an interesting and a fair point. for the years that i've been covering the gay rights movement, it has insisted often prematurely that public opinion, social science, moral authority, et cetera, was already with them. that the country had already decided. and the polling didn't always bear that out. the voting didn't always bear that out. in 2008 when prop 8 passed, it was such a shock and a blow because for years, the gay rights community was insisting that a state has evolved in liberalist california would never allow this to happen. so it was shocking. well, now i think that narrative has caught up to the insistence, the promise of that sea change might finally be here. so to jonathan capehart's point, maybe scotus doesn't see the need for its involvement. whatever you think of the issue,

i can see capehart's point that they might be reluctant given the new narrative. >> i don't know how the citizenses will rule. i don't pretend to have any particular insight into their mind sets here. but another comparison that he reference in the his piece was a new york time article over the weekend about parallels with the row v. wade decision. and the idea that the roe v. wade decision was in some ways counterproductive. created a back lash against the court. created a back lash culturally against expanded rights for abortion. and i just, i don't think that particular parallel makes a lot of sense. for one thing you cannot remove that one decision from the overall cultural context. and it wasn't just that one decision that sparked this back lash. you had already a back lash building against what was seen as excesses of the '60s. you already had a conservative back lash building against the

court from griswold and from civil rights and from miranda even. so it wasn't just this one decision that created that sort of back lash. and the other reason i don't think the parallel holds here is because people who believe, who are pro-life. who are staunchly pro-life, believe that abortion is tantamount to murder. no one thinks that gay marriage is like murder. so i don't think the emotions here run quite as high either. it is hard to imagine people really taking to the streets if doma were to be overturn at this time. >> yeah. and the other part of that is that while the emotions come from the grassroots, there has been a real shift among the political leadership in this country. when you look from president obama to president clinton to hillary clinton to rob portman to dick cheney, cleric mccaskill, jon huntsman. there are a tremendous number of federal officials, highly visible people in both parties.

not only saying people should have this right, which is the moral position, but also saying something that i think creates an incredible opening for the public which is i changed my mind. people get in different ways. but that is also really different. in the civil rights era which is obviously the sort of historical precedent that people look to. the court was way out front. sometime in unanimous decisions like brown, in school busing, obviously in a lot of areas of extending rights to minorities. they were way ahead of both parties. you go back to the original civil rights raer and both parties were table because we lived in a completely racist, elite structure. and so the court was really one of the only elite institutions in the country that ran against that. while i understand the broader context, i think this is a supreme court that by that historical standard is late and that has fell behind as recently as the '80. this was a supreme court that

was upholding states' ability to put people in jail for having gay sex. in 1986. not a long time ago. so they're late, they're behind and i think there will be a tremendous desire to find a ruling. maybe not 100% federalized ruling but to find a ruling that really cracks the door a lot more open toward these rights. >> you're right. the court is late on this. and i'm not comfortable with proposing this sort of state by state approach that jonathan is suggesting. because i think civil rights should not be decided by voters and legislatures, that the court should come down and liberate gay americans and allow them to be full americans and have the full protection of the law and not have to pay $360,000 bills like ian windsor. and i'm tired of a certain group of americans having to wait until another group, a minority of americans decides now i'm comfortable with you having your rights. one's rights, gay rights is not infringing on i'm@people's rights. my marriage is not changed because jim and jack can get

married. it doesn't matter. we shouldn't be competing and discussing what your rights are versus my rights. we should not, gay americans should not be continuing to suffer discrimination until the others of the world have decided, now i'm coming around to gay marriage. >> i'm sure jonathan capehart will be thrilled to know that we spun on his column. and krystal, i have to tell you if you come back any tanner than you are right now, i will hurt you. >> it's nice here. i have to say. if i come back, i should say. >> you look great. i'm jealous. up next, what a deal for cyprus means for us. we'll check how the markets reacti reacting. [ shapiro ] at legalzoom, you can take care of virtually

all your important legal matters in just minutes. protect your family... and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. or just seem to fade away, day by day? don't compromise. new vidal sassoon pro series from the original salon genius. starts vibrant, stays vibrant. precision mix formula saturates each strand for 100% gray coverage. hydrablock conditioner helps fight fade out for up to 8 weeks. new vidal sassoon lets you say no to compromise and yes to vibrant color like this. new vidal sassoon pro series salon genius. affordable for all.

these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is [ angry gibberish ]

now with your cyprus minutes after a strong opening writing news. the s&p dow and nasdaq now are

all in the red for the day in order to secure the funds from the european partners. cyprus was forced to slash its banking sector, cut its budget and privatize state assets. the kicker, all deposits above 100,000 euros including ari's account. under e.u. law will be used to resolve debts, effectively -- >> do we get a time-out? >> cyprus' biggest problems in the banking system. you cannot help but wonder if the u.s. is looking at a version of our future in the guest spot today, the assistant managing editor of time. she is here to give us the latest. maybe give ari some advice. answer the most american of all questions, what does this mean for us? >> it is all about us. >> always. >> you can't spell u.s. without -- >> wow! debuting that. >> all right. the good news first, it is not as bad as it could have been.

there was talk at the beginning of the whole crazy mess last week that they would tax mom and pop depositors with less than 100,000 in the barng. they did nothing wrong. they did not get the banks in that mess. a lot of outrage about that. protests in the street, et cetera, et cetera. we're now trying to grab those funds above 100,000 euros and the rub here is that there's at love russian offshore money in cyprus. that's what the authorities are trying to grab. >> parking money. >> i'm getting very nervous. >> to pick up on what you're

saying about what you call the tax in that first proposal, a lot of the critics said it is not a tax. that goes to the core of this. the entire financial system is based on trust. the average consumer isn't worried as much about bond yields. the trust when they put money into the bank, they can take it back out. how much did the floating of that proposal cut against that trust? i think hugely. i wrote a column about this this week. i think if you're an italian or a spaniard or in another potentially beleaguered european country, you're worried. i would potentially be thinking of going to the bank if i lived in those countries. it underscores that three years on from the beginning of the european debt crisis, nothing has changed. we could have written the same story two years ago. there is no set way to bail out banks that are failing. there is no way to bail out countries that are failing. what i worry is that it is getting politically tougher in europe to come to union. the german lose are basically

holding the checkbook are tired. they've done at love bailouts already and it is getting tougher for their leaders to sell that politically to them. so who knows what will happen the next time. >> you had the president there saying no one will lose their money. everything will be fine. calm down, and now yeah, if you had your money at the bank of cyprus, about 40% of it will probably be gone. if you had your money in that bank, it almost all gone. is the lesson that they can survive at closing of a too big to fail bank like that or when cyprus eventually leaves the e.u. in a year, what are the long term lessons for all of us to learn?

if this were happening in italy, we would all be a lot more worried. the bottom line is there is no solution. we don't know what will happen. that's the thing. markets are worried, people are worried. when you have that trust defense significance, it gets really hard politically. >> i want to get your thoughts on a paul krugman op ed when he was writing about the inflows and outflows. he goes through a long list, mexico, brazil, argentina, sweden, finland, et cetera, et cetera. a financial crises. he said the biggest bringingor of these was large inflows of foreign capital followed by a quick rush, an exit of foreign capped. he said the truth is that the unrestricted movement of capital is looking more and more like a failed experiment. >> i love this column. i wrote that same column about two years ago. it is always dangerous tube too

early but i predicted we would see that. in the last few years, it is like rich countries and poor countries have shifted faces. the developing nations are the ones who have done more things responsible from a financial standpoint and the rich nations are really screwing up. capital controls, putting stops as the cypriots have done, it is something that used to be done in countries like argentina when they were failing. this is now a rich country phenomenon. this is one of those things that we thought couldn't happen. like we thought the u.s. and the big european countries could not get downgraded. we're now in a new reality. >> read her now to see what krugman will be writing about in two years. >> and did you hear? i've got a book out. i'm borrowing a page from chuck todd. making a shameless plug, it is

called, "i would die 4 u." a lot of my family was there. it wasn't just a back party twurk a sweaty throw down dance party. i want to know, who do you think is a bigger force in the music industry? prince, elton john, or justin timberlake? mark says prince, his musical energy has expand more. up next, on the heels of secretary kerry's surprise trip to iraq this weekend, a new book examines how the decision to get into that war compares to our entry into world war ii. [ male announcer ] you know that guy

that paints landscapes and doberman pinschers, well he eats the liquid gold of velveeta shells and cheese. there is no limit to the human imagination. multidimensionality. liquid gold. eat like that guy you know.

. this afternoon, john kerry is in afghanistan for the first time as secretary of state. it comes after a surprise trip

to iraq this week which included a meeting with prime minister noory in al maliki. they gather to celebrate the battle of nasiriyah. during the fight, 11 u.s. soldiers were killed and six were captured. ultimately, colonel bat operations in iraq lasted over eight years. about three years longer than world war ii. but unlike world war ii, the iraq war carries a tarnished legacy. we rush to war fueled by the fear of wmds and links to al qaeda. neither of which proved true. the new msnbc documentary hubris reports on how that case got so muddled. >> the 90-page classified nie asserts that saddam is actively pursuing his wmd program. it cites the debatable intelligence on aluminum tubes, the yellow cake uranium purchase and mobile weapons labs. deep inside that thick document are strongly worded dissents

that argue, the evidence is weak, even wrong. >> the nie is sent over to congress. it is kept in a classified vault. as far as we can tell, only about a half dozen senators actually read it. had they done so, they would have seen that it was filled with dissent. >> if i had red the national intelligence estimate on iraq, i probably would have been, have done myself a favor by being better informed on the intelligence rather than listening to the administration. >> the administration was intent on going to war and marginalizing any opponents in the way. that's one dynamic that matches the world war ii era. when the country engaged in a much longer and deeper debate. but ultimately, the isolationists were done, wiretapped and linked to traitors. as detailed in the new book, those angry days. kit teach us a lot about how to debate the most important question in a democracy, when to go to war.

we are joined now by lynn olson. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> the first question is what your book focuses on. this attack that went on for years really original the isolationists. what do we know now that we've learn from that period? about how that debate over the war was conducted and that tradition of isolationism in american foreign policy? >> before world war ii, there was a very strong isolationist streak in this country. and for two years, as you said, until really pearl harbor, there was a huge debate about whether we should go to the aid of britain which was on the verge of defeat by hitler, and whether we should get into the war. the difference between iraq and back before world war ii was that it was really a full throated national debate. it involved millions of people all over the country. not just in washington, not just in congress and the white house.

but it involved people in classrooms and offices, in bars, et cetera. so the people actually got a chance to put their two cents in. they were able to have an impact on what was going to happen in terms of foreign policy which was not true with iraq. >> when you talk about iraq and world war ii, you talk about how the dissenters in both were vilified and cast as traitors. isn't that necessary to go to war if we had an actually sober, calm discussion about whether or not we should go to war, i think in a lot of cases we would decide maybe, no, we should not. >> i think whenever you talk about going to war, that is going to happen. i think the one side, the critics of the war are going to be criticized. and i must say that in those two years before world war ii, it was really nasty. it turned really savage at some point. but again, it was a real exercise in democracy.

i mean, democracy is often messy. and it is often loud. and that was true back then. but we ended up -- >> why was it worse for the hawks? why is it always bad for the doves and never for the hawks? >> well, you're right. both sides need to be abe to make their voices heard. before world war ii, the isolationists really had a chance to make their voices heard. yes, they were vilified. and some of them had their reputations blackened. but it is the way it is. it is a messy, painful business to go to war. in terms of world war ii, everybody got a chance to make their voices heard even if they came under a lot of criticism was a good thing. >> lynn, you mentioned earlier pearl harbor. do you see parallels between pearl harbor and 9/11 as sort of

the flash point that allowed our leaders to pull us into war? do you think we would have entered world war ii were it not for pearl harbor? >> certainly when the japanese attacked, that made it very easy in a way for us to go to war. we had been intact. we had to retaliate basically. i think we would have ended up in the war eventually. the american people understood that we were going to, that we needed to get into this conflict one way or the other. they were ready to go. so even if it had taken longer, we would have ended in the war. and i think the country still would have been united. >> well, and i think looking back at world war ii, it almost serves as a stark cautionary tale against isolationism. we all agree that we have the

moral imperative to do something there. i'm wondering, at the time we've all talked about how the isolationists were criticized and vilified. and we were vilified for maybe waiting too long to go in. and i'm wondering if you see vietnam and then later iraq as a resulting response of that fear that maybe we've waited too long to intervene in a necessary conflict. >> i think we tend to fight the last war. and i think that was true in vietnam. and it was true in iraq. how many times have we heard the talk of munich and appeasement by leaders who are, who want us to get into another war. for example, vietnam, both vietnam and iraq. that was a different war. you know, we should take lessons from history. but they should be the right lessons and world war ii was a special case. it was not vietnam and it certainly wasn't iraq.

but it is important to understand what happened there at the same time. >> right. >> the book is those angry days. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> up next, i'm a dr., jim, not an accountant. if you get that, you have definitely seen the best story of the day. star trek. back and spinning next. i was cooking dinner for my family. all of a sudden, i was just wringing wet from head to toe. boom. heart attack. i'm a nurse and a care giver. never once did i consider that i might be having a heart attack. it can happen to anyone at any time. the doctor recommends bayer aspirin to keep this from happening to me again. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. it's working. six years and counting. know the symptoms. talk to your doctor. we create easy to use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius!

strategies, chains, positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? open an account today and get a free 13-month e ibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0157 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective

to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures.

before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. for more information including cost support options, a brand new start. your chance to rise and shine. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner, you can do just that. with our visionary cloud infrastructure, global broadband network and custom communications solutions, your business is more reliable - secure - agile. and with responsive, dedicated support, we help you shine every day of the week. as if the irs wasn't hated

enough before, there's news the agency spent over $60,000 on not one but two employee trading videos parroting star trek and gilligan's island. nbc's kelly o'donnell has been all over it. what have you got for us? >> reporter: well, you know, when you think about this time of year the irs can make people nervous. when you look at this you might have a little chuckle. what happened here is a congressional committee was asking the irs for an explanation, what kinds of videos were being made. what did it cost. when they took a closer look, they found there wasn't a whole lot of training in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. the irs spent about $60,000. >> captain's log, star date -- >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate star trek parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave never wrong order. >> how fast can you get us the heck out of here? >> scottie --

>> drying the everybody gins as fast as we can. >> ask of course, mr. spock themselves aren't actors. no, they are tax men. >> back in russia, i dreamed someday i would be rich and famous. >> me, too, that's why i became a public servant. >> the irs says the video was made for a 2010 employee conference. >> you don't mean -- >> that's right. pennies on the dollar. >> a house oversight committee demanded the irs turn over the video and plan is how much was spent. congressman charles told the irs the star trek video did not contain meaningful training content. critics called it expensive silliness. >> the american people will see this and they'll be dismayed and they'll be disappointed and some people will feel like, i knew those guys were just wasting my money. >> is the irs responded saying in part, there is no miss taking that this video did not reflect the best stewardship of resources.

and a video of this type would not be made today. and they also made that gilligan's island video with all the costumes and the characters, too, but they actually determined when the committee looked at it that there was some meaningful training information in that. the irs does a lot of these videos. some intended for the public. some for training inside the irs. and they say it actually saves taxpayers money by cutting down on staff hours and travel costs and that sort of thing. when it came to the spoof on star trek, that seemed to go a little too far, according to the committee and the irs says it is tightening controls to make the best use of the production and not do something like this again. but as so many things do, this will live on youtube. >> thanks, kelly. let's back spin on it. it is sort of funny. they're playing against type here, right? who speaks the faceless government bureaucrat tax checker can't have a little fun, right? but actually, what bothers me

most about this story, yes, it is a waist of money. yes, $60,000 is absurd, silly, pointless, et cetera, et cetera. is congress really spending its time on $60,000 expenditures? i mean, it sounds like a lot of money in the context of this video. but in the context of the whole federal budget, it is immaterial. and it seems like there is this desire to find the proverbial $16 a month muffin that you can point to and say, all of government is wasteful and they're just using our taxpayer dollars without actually focusing on the bigger picture problems and trying to solve those rather than pointing at the silly video. >> sure. but if the bigger problem that you're trying to expose and solve is that government is wasting your money, then this of course plays right into that. that immaterial expenditure when add to the rest of them can be a lot of money. but my concern with this is not

necessarily how much they spend. it is how much they spent and what we got for it. this is not a good movie. these are not good films. and i did a little research. and it turns out for that money, for $60,000, they could have made the blair witch project and clerks, and grossed $250 million on top of that, thus making money for the taxpayers of so this wasn't very good film production or acting or a way to spend money on film. >> you would not have grossed that kind of money if you did not have amazing people behind it. both those films are incredible. >> but they could afforded to have amazing people behind it and didn't. >> right. but if you spend $60,000 and you have no talent, you won't make a bunch of money. the guys behind clerks and blair witch project had a certain amount of talent. >> they could have bought the talent. that's what i'm saying. >> not quite. the thing that jumps out at me is how out of touch are these

irs people? they actually clearly had a brain storm. they said association what regoing to do? what are the kids talking about right now. and they come one two television shows from 30 to 35 years ago? have they watched television in the last three to four decades? i mean, did the cosby show, too recent? i love how star trek that's on its them as liberators going to planet no tax which is anarchy which makes sense. if you have no taxes, you probably would have an, ay. you break down civilization and society but that's another conversation. america would look at them more like, the sopranos, tough guys who will show up. bang on your door, maybe kill you, take your money and leave. maybe a little breaking bad. maybe they should have done the wire. that would have been more, in keeping with what americans think of them instead of this -- >> i don't think they're as cool as any of them.

>> i dance for next time. >> i want to pick up on the point that kelly made which dove tails about how few sort of shows they have in mind. during the investigation which the ap reports organize they have this great line which says congressional investigators initially sought both the star trek video and the gilligan's island video but after viewing them, they determined"gilligan' island" was a legitimate training video." >> how was that determined? >> i take it back. >> why can't we see it if it was legitimate? >> that's really what -- well, that's also true. that's what it boils down to to me. i don't know exactly where the line is. i'm sensitive to the idea that there's a miniaturization of oversight here that crystal was getting out, why is the committee spending so much time on these videos? >> preposterous. >> if you have to get in and decide which corny spoof video of a television show that no longer exists is maybe for training purposes for tax collection, you've already lost

it and they should just get back to doing the normal jobs. >> and the acting was horrible. >> yeah. and watch better tv shows, guys. >> what i really like is how shocked you guys are the irs didn't do a better job of making these movies. tax collectors were not more creative or current. >> we can make a great movie for little money. >> we're not former accountants unlike somebody who you never expect, krystal ball. >> that's right. >> i was going to say, i was going to say -- >> say. >> -- that i do feel a little bit of sympathy here. not only am i a cpa, former cpa, but i also used to work for a federal government contractor and have made training videos for the federal government. >> oh, no. >> and training manuals. none of them were "star trek" related. i can imagine the meeting where someone was like, hey, guys, you know what, let's shake it up, these videos are dry and boring, let's do something the kids are going to like and relate to that people are going to feel good about, enjoy, have fun while learning about the irs. >> krystal, can we put a bounty

out on the internet to find all of your old vidvideos, put up a reward and start broadcasting? >> no, we can't. >> we're going to find those. charlie is already on it. one thing i'm going to say, perhaps, why i'm shocked at this behavior from them, my father is an accountant. i always thought he was the coolest man i ever knew. growing up, these jokes about how accountants are uncool. i don't get it. >> why is everyone going for accountant street cred today? >> it's cool, ari. >> s.e., what's your relationship to a cpa? i feel good about this segment, guys. we covered this story from all angles. congratulations. >> problem solved. >> good. all right. up next, toure and rand paul agree on thing? what? oh, wait. they're telling me it's pot. that makes a little more sense. of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief.

[ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪♪ ♪ ♪ geico motorcycle. see how much you could save.

dad: you excited for youyeah.st day? ♪ dad: you'll be fine, ok? girl: ok. dad: you look so pretty. ♪ i'm overprotective. that's why i got a subaru. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. [ chainsaw buzzing ] humans. sometimes, life trips us up.

sometimes, we trip ourselves up. and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at... to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

i don't feel what i've done is a crime, and i think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. because when you think about it, what did i really do? i crossed an imagination line with a bunch of plans. >> amen, brother. if i were to give you a challenge to go out and buy a bag of weed in under two hours i bet all of you could do it especially if you're in a big city. marijuana in america is plentiful and cheap, though it can be psychologically addictive, physical dependency is not a factor. according to research, marijuana is not a gateway drug. i don't want people to smoke weed to excess or drink to excess. i think you should be able to smoke or drink responsibly and the government should not be in the business of having to police what we put in our bodies.

i don't want people to go to prison and become lifelong felons saddled with all that entails which can include losing the right to vote, cut off from most jobs because they were caught smoking or possessing a little weed. nonviolent offenders are in prison for exactly that. turning them into permanent felons is detrimental to america. the legal response to smoking devalues people's potential far more than the physical impact of the drug, itself. the tide is slowly turning against the war on drugs. two states have voted to legalize marijuana. colorado and washington. and some of the leaders of the republican party are comfortable coming out to say they're in favor of a change. >> the war on drugs, while well intentioned, has been a failure. that we're warehousing addicted people every day. >> there are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for nonviolent crimes and that's a huge mistake. our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals.